Communicated on 24 September 2018
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 44502/14
Ruşan UYSAL
against Turkey
lodged on 11 June 2014
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application mainly concerns the applicant’s deprivation of his property without any compensation in return for the expropriation of his land.
The administration initiated expropriation negotiations with the applicant for the assignment of part of his land. They agreed on expropriation on the condition that the administration would obtain the applicant’s land at a symbolic price and would, in exchange, make a change in the zoning plan in respect of the remaining land in order to make it eligible for the construction of a gas station. Following the consensus, the applicant’s property was transferred to the Istanbul Municipality. However the administration did not make the changes in the zoning plan, contrary to its previous commitment.
The applicant introduced a case for the annulment of the land’s registration on the administration and claimed compensation for de facto expropriation. The Bakırköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction accepted the applicant’s compensation request, however; dismissed his claim for the annulment of the registration, finding that the deducted part of the property constituted a road. The Court of Cassation quashed that judgment, considering the impugned deduction in the applicant’s land as contribution to planning costs (düzenleme ortaklık payı), for which no payment of compensation is required.
On 28 June 2013 the Constitutional Court found the applicant’s individual application inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded.
The applicant alleges that he was deprived of his property without having been compensated, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No.1 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention on account of the administration’s registration of his property on itself without paying the real value of his property, in particular, taking account of its previous commitment regarding the relevant amendment to the zoning plan which would enable the applicant to build a gas station in the remaining land?
Moreover, was the conclusion reached by the Court of Cassation, namely, that the land at issue had been deducted as contribution to planning costs, had sufficient legal basis? In particular, was there any decision to that effect before the registration of the deducted land, which constituted more than 40% of the total surface area foreseen by Section 18 of the Zoning Law, on the administration?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy